You are on page 1of 3

BY GREGORY CONTI

COULD GOOGLING
TAKE DOWN A
PRESIDENT?
Everything we do online is known and knowable and can be combined with
everything else that is known and knowable.
In the August 1984 Communications, Ken Thompson taught us to question our notion of trust,
recognizing that even our most carefully crafted code might not generate trustworthy exe-
cutable programs if the compiler is compromised [5]. Looking to the future, however, I realize
Thompson didn’t go far enough. Today, we must question our trust in all aspects of the infor-
mation environment, including online companies and even the infrastructure of the Internet.
We live in an era of rampant data disclosure and ubiquitous implied trust—two factors that will
come to haunt us in the near future.

W
e disclose sensitive and ultimately per- unprecedented power in the hands of the most popu-
sonally identifiable information to our lar online companies and ISPs, along with thousands
Internet service providers (ISPs) and of others, and there will come a time when it will be
favorite online organizations of every difficult or impossible to wrest back that power.
type and purpose each time we sit down at the com- Could Googling take down a president, prime
puter. Don’t believe me? Imagine if Google, Yahoo, or minister, congressman, or senator? The question is
MSN aggregated and mined every search query ema- provocative but worth considering as we face the near
nating from your corporate IP space and every email future of trust and privacy. Googling1 is an integral
containing your corporate domain name. Strategic
plans, blackmailable material, health concerns, and 1
By Googling I mean the full spectrum of free online tools and services (such as
social networks would all emerge. We are placing search, mapping, email, Web-based word processing and calendaring).

COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM January 2008/Vol. 51, No. 1 71


micropayments in the form of personal
information [3].
One billion users, while a very large
number, represents less than 18% of
the global population and just a frac-
tion of those who will turn to the Inter-
net in the future. Although some
progress has been made, these most
sensitive of our hopes, dreams, and
intentions [2] are routinely passed to
online companies that scrupulously log
and retain our revelations, sometimes
indefinitely, where they are data-mined
to allow customized advertising and
help improve our online experience.
Encryption offers little help, as online
companies are a trusted party in the
communication. Your computer and
its Internet connections accelerate the
loss of privacy. Counterintuitively, the
more usable a given online application,
the worse it is in terms of our personal
privacy. Online companies are not the
only ones with access to this informa-
tion. It also flows across the networks
of our ISPs, which have the power to
collect, and even alter, practically every
bit we send and receive. The informa-
tion visible to online companies and
the ISPs is largely the same; only the
network vantage point is different.
In most instances of online naviga-
tion and interaction, it would be pru-
dent to assume that these disclosures
are never discarded. Once a disclosure
is made, it can never be undone. At
part of the Internet fabric. Approximately one billion best, we must trust our ISPs and online organizations
Internet users worldwide rely on networked technol- to eventually discard the information. At the same
ogy to provide information and interconnection for time, network neutrality is under attack. We cannot
all aspects of their lives, both personal and profes- assume the information we receive is what the infor-
sional. Everything from our physical location, to what mation provider actually sent.
we think, to who we know can all be found in this In some ways, trust is increasingly irrelevant,
data. Despite the best intentions of those doing the because, if we are to be members of the Internet-
collecting or communicating, it is impossible to guar- enabled society, we have no other option but to rely on
antee it will stay private or not be used for some mali- the powerful tools we have at our disposal (such as
cious purpose. As an example, AOL disclosed, in those provided by major search engines). Like rats
August 2006, the search queries of some 657,000 of forced to endure electric shocks to acquire food, we
its users that contained sensitive and personally iden- must use these tools to acquire information and com-
tifying information [1]. This incident only hints at municate. The implications of data disclosure and
the risks the world’s most powerful leaders, as well as retention are profound, including corporate and law-
ordinary citizens, face when using myriad “free” tools enforcement abuses and identity theft, as well as sec-
(such as search, email, mapping, news, word process- ond- and third-order effects impossible to predict.
ing, calendaring, and blog hosting). Free online ser- Those of us who are aware of the risks already self-cen-
vices aren’t really free; we pay for them with sor our activities, even as we continue to indulge them.

72 January 2008/Vol. 51, No. 1 COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM


Those of us who are aware of the
risks already self-censor our activities, even as
we continue to indulge them.

What is most worrisome is less that the data is influence the trajectory of technology development
being collected at any given moment and more how it and use. The public is unaware, apathetic, or sees no
will be used (and abused) in the future. Future other option than the status quo. But each of us is able
advances in data mining, profiling, and machine to change it. As the world’s leading technologists, we
learning are particularly worrisome. While I don’t have the power to seek and find equitable solutions
foresee a dystopia in the near future, I do see a steady that would protect our privacy, increase our trust, and
decline in individual freedoms and civil liberties. This still allow online businesses, social interaction, and
decline is not new, dating back to at least the 1970s network providers to innovate and flourish.
when large computerized databases of personal infor- In the future, Googling could indeed take down a
mation were being formed in earnest. The pace accel- president, yield a cure for cancer, and ruin or enrich
erated globally in the aftermath of 9/11. Will we our lives. We have to live with the past decade’s worth
eventually reach equilibrium? I think not. The gravi- of disclosures, but promising solutions are on the
tational pull of both profit and power will continue to horizon. Whether they include paying for privacy,
drive the decline. better tools for self-monitoring online activity, anony-
Public outcry may have the power to stem the tide, mous browsing, informed law-making, privacy-pro-
but public opinion is fickle. Even the 2005 Sony tecting corporate policy, increased user awareness, or
rootkit incident, in which tainted Sony CDs were able something yet to be discovered, the solution is up to
to infect hundreds of thousands of end-user PCs, and each of us. c
the 2006 AOL data spill did little to penetrate the
public consciousness. In one 2007 study only 16% of References
the participants reported being familiar with the AOL 1. Barbaro, M. and Zeller, T. A face is exposed for AOL searcher no.
4417749. The New York Times (Aug, 9, 2006);
incident six months after it took place [4]. If this lack www.nytimes.com/2006/08/09/technology/09aol.html?ex=1312776000
of public interest characterizes the general population, en=f6f61949c6da4d38ei=5090.
2. Battelle, J. The database of intentions. John Battelle’s Searchblog (Nov.
a less extreme rate of change will be unable to gener- 13, 2003); battellemedia.com/archives/000063.php.
ate enough resistance to make a difference. 3. Conti, G. Googling considered harmful. In Proceedings of the New Secu-
People have only a small window of experience to rity Paradigms Workshop (Schloss Dagstuhl, Germany, Sept. 19–22).
ACM Press, New York, 2006, 67–76.
use as a reference. Chances are you lived through 9/11 4. Conti, G. and Sobiesk, E. An honest man has nothing to fear: User per-
and knew adult life before that day. You have a refer- ceptions on Web-based information disclosure. In Proceedings of the Sym-
posium on Usable Privacy and Security (Pittsburgh, July 18–20). ACM
ence point, but when our generation is gone, few Press, New York, 2007, 112–121.
guides will be available to show how to defend our 5. Thompson, K. Reflections on trusting trust. Commun. ACM 27, 8 (Aug.
personal privacy. Those in power are loathe to relin- 1984), 761–763.
quish or even share it. And, as the power and control
this information (and its data-mined results) provides Gregory Conti (conti@acm.org) is Director of the Information
Technology and Operations Center and an Academy Professor of
over hundreds of millions of citizens is seductive, cor- Computer Science at the United States Military Academy, West Point,
ruption is inevitable. Action is critical, before it is too NY.
late to forestall individuals from losing control of their
The views expressed here are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy
own data and perhaps even of their digital identities. or position of the United States Military Academy, the Department of the Army, the
I don’t want to live my life inside a Faraday cage Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.
and abandon the Internet. To do so would force me
to withdraw from modern society. The future I fore-
see isn’t guaranteed; each of us has the innate ability to © 2008 ACM 0001-0782/08/0100 $5.00

COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM January 2008/Vol. 51, No. 1 73

You might also like